Can someone tell me the differences between the physio 360, enhanced, and drx??I know the 360 is only digitally surfaced on the rear, and enhanced is both sides, but whats the deal with the drx??
Can someone tell me the differences between the physio 360, enhanced, and drx??I know the 360 is only digitally surfaced on the rear, and enhanced is both sides, but whats the deal with the drx??
I dont think enhanced is on both sides~
i am totally confused by the big E!!!
Then go elsewhere...Seiko perhaps.
It's a excellent question. I suggest you ask your Essilor rep. This board has a lot of very anti Essilor posters.
Essilor... BOOO(j/k)
I heard the DRX is a full freeform front and back where they take into account the panto, wrap, and BVD. Similar to the Zeiss individual(?)
I have bever used one though so I cant say for sure. Have you checked thelenseguru.com?
360 is the backside
Enhanced is the WAVE 2 tech (Same as in the sport) and customized "w/o the need for additional equipment" (use the frame parameters and proprietary algorithms to process. Backside (Enhanced fit is customized for position of wear..)
DRX this one step further by more stringent quality controls. Everything is calibrated daily. Must use specific Essilor SFSV lenses for processing, etc. Design is based upon real human testing, not computer simulations. It is backside only.
"Some believe in destiny, and some believe in fate. But I believe that happiness is something we create."-Something More by Sugarland
The 360 and Enhanced start with semi-finished Physio blanks. The 360 had an aspheric back surface ("irregular atoric" is the term E used), I assume to reduce oblique astigmatism. The Enhanced has a more complex back surface. I believe it has a variable corridor length, and may have a prescription tweak at the distance and maybe at near. The DRx uses a SVSF blank, placing the PAL optics on the back, and is available in a standard or short corridor. Optimizations may be limited to reducing oblique atigmatism.
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman
Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.
Funny about how much mis-information gets mixed up with the real information.
The Physio was originally launched to over come some of the limitation of the Comfort, which were narrow intermediate and distance vision that narrowed in higher add powers (the Comfort was designed to keep reading wide and stable in all powers). It also included front side Aspheric compensation designed for the larger pupil size of night driving, to reduce Coma which Essilor confusingly called Wave-Form. The cornea gets more aspheric the larger the pupil size and it requires different algorithms to compensate.
Both the 360 and Enahanced use the same blank as the standard Physio, but is digital processed with distance vision only on the back only. The 360 had mixed results so Essilor contracted with Seiko to improve the design and it became the Enhanced. Seiko has some great patents on Aspheric designs. They are both 50% Free-form, or what I call a Hybrid Progressive. There are tremendous limits on what I can do to the backside to improve the front near areas because anything over .18 D in compensation will cause patent issues. Enhancements would have the greatest effect on the distance portion, as cast front side adds induce distortion at a much higher rate than backside adds in most cases, there is little I can do to reduce total distortion with only .18D to play with. Its like putting a key into a locked door from the wrong side.
The Physio DRx is back-side processed only on a spherical blank, so its 100% Free-form. Its actually a completely new design but with similarities to the original Physio, with a wider distance and stable intermediate across a variety of power ranges. In theory since the DRx corridor is also digital, it should offer much better vision than the other Physios especially in higher add powers, with less total distortion. I have a pair on order and will let you know when I try them out.
Last edited by sharpstick777; 08-19-2011 at 12:06 PM.
Thank you, Sharpstick!
Do you have any idea when the 360 and the Ellipse are going to be discontinued?
If it is processed on one side only, that would sound like 50% Freeform as compared to a lens that was processed on both sides.The Physio DRx is back-side processed only on a spherical blank, so its 100% Free-form.
RT
Actually the other way around. Dual lenses are cast on the front and only minor enhancements are made to the back, whereas a FBS is 100% Rx on the back. The dual BS was just there to sell out stock on such lenses and for manufacturers to catch up on those that were FBS ahead of them. Now with DRx Essilor thinks they are able to finally play in the game. However, they aren't selling well for them at all, thus one of the many reason they are having a poor year.Originally Posted by RT
360 is likely going to be end of life by the end of this year. From what I know, no firm date has been noted.
Last edited by racethe1320; 08-20-2011 at 09:05 PM.
The entire RX is Free-form: Distance: Free-form + Intermediate: Free-form + Reading: Free-form = 100% Free-Form
Hybrid lenses: Distance: Free-form + Reading & Intermediate: Traditional Cast on front = 50% Free-form
In general, and any concave curves added to the front of convex lens (traditional cast lenses with the add on front) will increase distortion at a much higher rate than a concave curve on another concave curve on the back (backside free-form). Any front side concave curve will increase distortion at a rate double its add (or curve) power (it will vary a bit depending if its a hard design, or soft design), while on the back the distortion is only half its power. In most cases it only causes problems to touch the front surface of the lens.
Currently there are only 2 lenses with any front side Free-form Process.
Hoya puts base-out/base-up prism on the front of some of their Free-form lenses to reduce skew. It works on the skew, but as in other posts in Optiboard, many people report narrow distance vision because the power deteriorates in the top corners. They do this by putting oblique cylinder on the front at the 180 and 90 degree axis, it creates multi-directional prism BO/BU. The power doesn't show up in the lensometer because its directionally cancelling. Hoya does not put any of the RX on front. Its a give and a take, it does reduce skew but at the cost of moving some areas of the lens (the corners) out of the usable RX range in some RX's. It will work better with "head turners" than "eye turners". The curve on front will increase total distortion the same rate as the add on front, so there are limits in how much power I can "pull" up and out. I don't favor this approach myself as skew is reduced on a 1-to-1 ratio, distortion increases at a 2-to-1 ratio. So for example, if I put 1D of BU/BO prism in the top corners, I neutralize 1D of skew, but total lens distortion increases 2D.
The Zeiss Individual puts some of the add on front only in high plus/ high add combinations. This makes sense because although concave curves increase distortion, so does an impossibly flat backside base curve of high plus Free-form. At some point (in pluses only) the advantage of the backside add decreases because we can't really make lenses in much higher than a 10D front side BC without compromising cosmetics (think Mr Magoo). This only works when their is precise math available on where the backside design begins to lose its ability to compensate for vertex and base curve. You can't just throw a randon amount of add on the front and hope for the best. Zeiss has put a lot of work into knowing when and how much power to put on front.
Since Hoya doesn't put any RX on front, and Zeiss only does in very high plus powers in high adds, it still leaves us with 100% Free-form definition applicable about 95% of the time. We could call the Zeiss and Hoya lenses 120% Free-form I guess.
Last edited by sharpstick777; 08-22-2011 at 12:18 PM.
No idea because we are already past the date on when I was first told (June '11). The 360 may never be disco'd because it's just a computer program, there is no inventory to speak of except the Physio blank. The Ellipse may be disco'd when inventory drops to certain levels, or Essilor needs the Ellipse casting line for something else.
The best source of info would be Jean-Marc LeRoy who is a big wig at Essilor in Dallas. Nice guy, and if you are at Vision Expo West he is usually in the Essilor booth.
my lab wouldn't let me order a comfort 360 because they said it was discountinued.
It was discontinued in Jan 2011.
I thought the CW on freeform definition was that it's a surfacing method, and by itself, gurantees very little advantage over traditional surfacing equipment. If you have the point files for a Sola VIP, and surface a VIP on the back, It's 100% freeform, but still a plain VIP, with all of it's disadvatages. Don't fall for the "wider field of view for back surface placement of the progressive", the difference is generally insignificant.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...6o_KOIZ-poVBkg
Do you mean skew distorion? My understanding is that although it's reduced by placing the progressive optics on the back surface, the difference is very slight.In general, and any concave curves added to the front of convex lens (traditional cast lenses with the add on front) will increase distortion at a much higher rate than a concave curve on another concave curve on the back (backside free-form). Any front side concave curve will increase distortion at a rate double its add (or curve) power (it will vary a bit depending if its a hard design, or soft design), while on the back the distortion is only half its power. In most cases it only causes problems to touch the front surface of the lens.
Here's Jalie's take.Currently there are only 2 lenses with any front side Free-form Process. Hoya...
http://www.opticianonline.net/assets...px?ItemID=2735
That's for the Gradal Individual processed in Germany. The back is surfaced with traditional generators (all of the Add is on the CV/convex surface). The new Individual has the power and progressive optics on the back.The Zeiss Individual puts some of the add on front only in high plus/ high add combinations.
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman
Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.
Free-form offers multiple advantages. The accuracy is seemly small (.10 D in general) but its what I can do with accuracy that matters. You are right in saying a VIP on a backside is still a VIP: Junk. But if I have a GOOD Free-form design, with a backside add, here is the potential:
1) Optomized Base Curve. Most multifocal come in only a few base curves (.5, 2, 4, 6, 8 traditionally, but there are exceptions) so only 5 RX's have true Best Form base curve (and perfect vision)... the rest are compromised. For perfect vision every RX should come on its own unique BC. We can offer True form BC lenses in SV, and Zeiss made True Form SV lenses in 1930's (Punctal) and Vikings made them in 1000's so its nothing new. Only with FF can I can compensate for non-ideal base curves in multi-focals.
2) Oblique Marginal Astigmatism. With higher cyls the focal points begin to seperate on oblique axis. Although we normally assume it takes 2D of cyl to cause problems, that is only true for True Form BC's. If my BC is compromised as above, the rate at which OBMA causes problems can drop to as little as -1.00 cyl. Trouble is, we usually have no idea when dispensing how far away the lenses we dispense are from True Form BC. Only FF can fix this in multifocals.
3) The increase accuracy is small (.10 D avg.) over traditional surfacing, but the usefullness of that is not the straight on power. That small jump in accuracy allows the designer to control 100X more "points" on the lens than before (it rises geometrically with each degree of precision). The design possibilities are tremendous with that much control. I won't get into avg. tool error (.07 D) or labs substituing tools (common), which changes the real world accuracy immensely.
4) Physics-wise, in a myope, the add belongs on back. When the add is on the front, the total potential distortion is increased because the lens has to progress from distance to reading. This "progression" on the front goes from a convex shape, to a concurve shape, back to a steeper convex. Nasty from a visual point of view, think a fun house mirror, or the "old sand analogy". In a back-side add lens by contrast (with a good design, digital accuracy) the progression transitions from a steeper concave curve to a flatter concave curve, to an even flatter concave cure. I am not going "in" and "out" per se like I am on the front. This adds up to less total "potential" distortion or junk. This advantage decreases in higher hyperopes. In some powers and in some designs, the "junk" that was on front, can actually become usable intermediate for the patient in backside FF. With a good FF design, and a backside add, you will always increase width of usable zones. Sometimes immensely.
I mean total potential distortion. I use that term because the designer can refashion that distortion many different ways with the improved accuracy and huge design possiblities of FF. In a front side add lens the total potential distortion is double the add, in a backside FF design its about 1/2 the add in a myope. A difference of 4 to 1. Most FF manufactures translate some of this gain into usable space, so it will vary by design and we still have "hard" and "soft" designs in FF. A harder design will translate more of that potential gain into usable space (at the cost of more distortion). And with FF I have more choices in how that residual distortion appears. I can traslate that into skew, prism or render some areas of the lens outside the usable range of the patient, its quite diverse.
Man, that looks good, thanks. Give me a few days to read that. I love that stuff.
Yes, the dual-sided Individual is processed only Germany, but its all true digital/Free-form on both sides. There are no traditional generators used, and there haven't been since about 1997 when it launched. It was at that time a front side add Free-form, but that changed in I believe, 2003-4? They used to use a digital "router" to make the lens originally, but lathes are much faster and cheaper. Schnieder is their favorite generator manufacturer.
In general, 81% of patients are myopes, and even with low power hyperopes I can still reduce total distortion to a point. So this works for over 90% of our RX's.
Last edited by sharpstick777; 08-22-2011 at 06:14 PM.
The funny thing is that while labs are using a digital process to make the lenses, they aren't necessarily investing in equipment that shows the topography of the lens. Some do. My lab uses Automation RoboticsDual lens mapper to show upwards of 1,600 data points. Thus if the digital equipment isn't calibrated you'll definitely be able to match it up against the recipe targeted for production. Essilor won't release that recipe of course but Shamir and others do, thus with it, there's a very clear indication of what is being targeted is being produced. You can't improve or guarantee what you don't measure. I like Shamir for a lot of reasons including their willingness to set up a lab for excellence.
Potential is the key word. I'm concerned that opticians and doctors (and their clients) might believe that "100% freeform" means a better lens. What they need to understand is that some freeform lenses can be an inferior compared to an appropriate (for the client) well designed semi-finished PAL surfaced using traditional equipment.
Do you mean unwanted surface astigmatism? The latest generation of PALs are somewhat less than 1:1 (surface astigmatism to Add power), and splitting the Add or putting it on the back amounts to about one bean in a hill of beans.I mean total potential distortion. I use that term because the designer can refashion that distortion many different ways with the improved accuracy and huge design possiblities of FF. In a front side add lens the total potential distortion is double the add, in a backside FF design its about 1/2 the add in a myope. A difference of 4 to 1.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...l=1#post117850Yes, the dual-sided Individual is processed only Germany, but its all true digital/Free-form on both sides. There are no traditional generators used, and there haven't been since about 1997 when it launched. It was at that time a front side add Free-form, but that changed in I believe, 2003-4? They used to use a digital "router" to make the lens originally, but lathes are much faster and cheaper. Schnieder is their favorite generator manufacturer.
Nowadays they probably use the freeform equipment to generate bothe sides, including the spherical and toric curves.
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman
Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.
We have a patient who we put in the Physio 360 with OD/OS +0.75 in Sphere, -0.75 Cylinder, with Add of +1.75 in both OD and OS. The patient indicates that both his near and intermediate vision is very narrow, and that his distance vision is OK but not very "crisp". Could this patient benefit from the DRX?
Thanks.
Could be the lens design... It could also be the way the eyewear is fitting your patient,I would check this 1st. Is there any chance that the frame could use additional panto or wrap so that the lens is closer to the eyes. This would expand the intermediate and reading widths.
If fitting is not the issue, then certainly a different lens design. Have not worked with the DRX, so cannot suggest how much it would help. I have had success with Autograph designs and found them to work well.
All the Physio's are a distance emphasized design, the Physio Ehnanced and DRX improve the distance more. The DRX does reduce total distortion in the corners over the enjanced and uses a more geometric straighter corridro. The DRx does have a wider more stable reading than the Enhanced, and a slightly wider intermediate than the Comfort.
However, none of the Essilor products approach the Japanese designs for corridor width.
As well, in my Physio lenses, my vision is not a crisp in the distance, and gets blurry quickly off of OC. I attribute this the Coma compensation, because they do work better at night. However, the loss of daylight vision clarity is not acceptable to me.
If you want wider corridors, all Japanese lenses will accomodate you, as will the Definity. However, the Seiko lenses are very clear in the distance too. They have a little bump with the MX Aspheric design. I give a lot of distance width in my Hoyas and Definity lenses.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks